Step by step surgery

[gmgraves]

27 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 So what ??? Cables of different L and C can interact with imperfectly designed components, especially where low Z output buffers aren't used.

 Your Science has no present explanation to several other recent findings either, not just from me, but in the Music Server section of the forum.

 

1) I’ve never seen where any solid state component hasn’t employed low Z output buffers. Doesn’t that sort of come with the territory?

2) MY science? I wasn’t aware that I was designated the keeper of the scientific flame! Seriously though, you can’t say in one breath that science moves on, and then in the next state that science has no present explanation, etc. IOW, if science had no explanation when I was taught “MANY years previously” and has no explanation now, then I’d say that science has not (in your words) “moved on”.😜

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, perfect playback is impossible. But there are 2 levels of playback possible: the normal standard where the characteristics of the playback chain intrudes significantly - this is the world where "the recording always sounds different, when it is played on another system"; the other level is, "the recording dominates, what's encoded there is what subjectively fills my universe".

 

What one does when tweaking is keep the reference of what a particular recording sounded like, when the one time it sounded "its best" occurred - that's the goal. As an example, I'm using the ABBA track, Ring, Ring, as a target, right now ... I 'know' how good it has sounded, so I work on altering the playback environment so that  the obvious distortions from the lackings of the chain are attenuated as much as possible ... this is the process of advancing the competence of the hardware, so that the absolute maximum can be extracted, given the obvious limitations.

That’s one of the problems that I have with your “method”. You seem to do all your experimenting with studio music, not with real acoustic instruments performing in real space. You don’t know what this stuff is supposed to sound like because the performance doesn’t exist outside of a studio (indeed, when these bands do live concerts, they have to take their studios with them, and the audience is listening to the Sound Reinforcement system, not to the actual musicians. For all you know, the singing voices have been changed by special effects electronics as, possibly, have the instruments themselves). When you say that the music sounds “right” on your tweaked system, how the furshlugginer do you even know what IS right? The performance has been manipulated in a hundred ways, and you don’t know what those manipulations even are! Use real, live, unmanipulated music to “voice” your system, and perhaps I’ll take your proselytizing seriously. Until then, I see your endless preaching as mere hubris.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

While I agree with you mostly, Alex, science has nothing to do with impressions that audiophiles form about this or that tweak such as audiophile fuses, thousand dollar mains cords that weigh more than the component that they are connected to, or 2-meter or shorter interconnects which purport to change the sound of one’s system, when science not only says that these things cannot be, but actually has no explanation as to why these things even “might” be real. It seems to me that this is more a case where mythology moves on rather than science...

 

There really isn't any new science relevant to sound reproduction.

 

Alex is trying to create a mythology that can move on

[sandyk]

56 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

1) I’ve never seen where any solid state component hasn’t employed low Z output buffers. Doesn’t that sort of come with the territory?

2) MY science? I wasn’t aware that I was designated the keeper of the scientific flame! Seriously though, you can’t say in one breath that science moves on, and then in the next state that science has no present explanation, etc. IOW, if science had no explanation when I was taught “MANY years previously” and has no explanation now, then I’d say that science has not (in your words) “moved on”.😜

Hi George

Many CD/DVD/BR players use a simple opamp at the output, sometimes a Dual opamp such a LM4562 etc ,.with typically a series output resistor of 100 ohms. The better ones use a specialised low Output buffer.

Science often only gets updated when there is a monetary incentive, or  Governments throw money into Defence, Space exploration etc. Governments rarely even get involved in Medical Research either, leaving that to big corporations etc. even though it would benefit the whole country for them to fund more research in specific areas where many of their Tax Dollars are needed to support their hospitals.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Governments rarely even get involved in Medical Research either, leaving that to big corporations etc. even though it would benefit the whole country for them to fund more research in specific areas where many of their Tax Dollars are needed to support their hospitals.

 

 

Quote

Did you know that NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, investing more than $32 billion a year to enhance life, and reduce illness and disability? 

 

https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding

[fas42]

More step by step surgery! As said earlier, the laptop power brick died - this is not a Toshiba original, but a cheap universal unit; minimal everything! Broke it apart, and quite clear what's happened - the fat electro cap which charges up from the mains voltage in the SMPS circuitry is poorly secured, could bounce around on its legs with ease; and one of the solder connections gave up the ghost, and was quite obviously sparking slightly as it tried to function - black soot all around. Finally, the lead broke free completely.

 

Resoldered, added a dab of Blu-Tack to stabilise the body of the cap, and gave it a go. Nothing. OK, there's slow blow fuse in the line of the mains in - yep, it's given up, all the sparking got too much for it. So, will have to dig it out to work out the rating - hope I have a spare.

 

To be continued ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

That’s one of the problems that I have with your “method”. You seem to do all your experimenting with studio music, not with real acoustic instruments performing in real space. You don’t know what this stuff is supposed to sound like because the performance doesn’t exist outside of a studio (indeed, when these bands do live concerts, they have to take their studios with them, and the audience is listening to the Sound Reinforcement system, not to the actual musicians. For all you know, the singing voices have been changed by special effects electronics as, possibly, have the instruments themselves). When you say that the music sounds “right” on your tweaked system, how the furshlugginer do you even know what IS right? The performance has been manipulated in a hundred ways, and you don’t know what those manipulations even are! Use real, live, unmanipulated music to “voice” your system, and perhaps I’ll take your proselytizing seriously. Until then, I see your endless preaching as mere hubris.

 

All music is usable for tweaking - I typically don't use real acoustic instrument material, because my brain can compensate too easily - classic studio produced pop is much higher stress, as a test for system integrity, I have found over the years. As an example, the NAD and Sharp combo does "too well" on acoustic instrument material when it is still far short of where it needs to be - could lull me into thinking that it's "good enough", .

 

The pure acoustic material still comes through a touch more cleanly when the setup has improved - I prefer using the exaggerated variations in the subjective sound, when using 'difficult' material - a far more precise 'measuring tool'.

 

Vocals in, older!!, pop music are normally clean - they become "fully human" when the rig is in the right place - the group, Status Quo, is a good example where the vocals completely snap into being 'real' when enough has been done.

[sandyk]

49 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

 

https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding

 And so should the U.S. Government, as most of their citizens can't afford to be treated in a Private Hospital without taking out a 2nd mortgage on their house.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

There really isn't any new science relevant to sound reproduction.

 

Alex is trying to create a mythology that can move on

Apparently.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Resoldered, added a dab of Blu-Tack to stabilise the body of the cap, and gave it a go. Nothing. OK, there's slow blow fuse in the line of the mains in - yep, it's given up, all the sparking got too much for it. So, will have to dig it out to work out the rating - hope I have a spare.

 

To be continued ...

 

And, working ...

 

Spare was a monster, full size fuse, compared to the mini unit inside - a bit of fiddling to squeeze it in, and give spacing around it, and then trying to solder it in place, because the original had pre-soldered leads ... is it a good repair? Not in a million years!! But, I know its weaknesses, 😀, and I shall be mighty careful in how I handle it, to make sure I don't put the wrong sort of stresses on it, 😉.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Apparently.

 You already personally know of at least one instance where currently accepted theory is incorrect.

 The same applies to just how small a change in dB humans can actually hear.

 It is WAY below the currently accepted limits.

Don't believe me ? Ask John Dyson who is possibly even more highly qualified than you are.

[Ralf11]

more anecdotal BS

[sandyk]

This isn't anecdotal bullshit.

 It is readily verifiable that you have not checked my Profile recently as you claimed.

Recent Profile Visitors

 15821 profile views 
Racerxnet 

Racerxnet
2  hours ago

kumakuma 

kumakuma
8 hours ago

numlog 

numlog
Yesterday at 10:29 AM

pkane2001 

pkane2001
Monday at 11:06 AM

marce 

marce
November 19

 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

59 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 You already personally know of at least one instance where currently accepted theory is incorrect.

 The same applies to just how small a change in dB humans can actually hear.

 It is WAY below the currently accepted limits.

Don't believe me ? Ask John Dyson who is possibly even more highly qualified than you are.

We are talking at cross purposes. I’m not disputing any of that! What I am saying is that the fact that science hasn’t quantified or even confirmed that a phenomenon has occurred has three possible explanations: 1) It doesn’t exist. 2) it does exist, but science has no explanation for said phenomenon. 3) The phenomenon may or may not exist, but no reputable research organization is trying to find out which it is. IOW, just because we experience something doesn’t automatically mean that the experience is real, or that what we think is going on is actually what we believe it to be.

[fas42]

Just to comment, yet again, on the fact that it seems to be a step too far, for virtually everyone in the audio game, to accept that less than optimal SQ is due to one or a number of poor quality links, somewhere, in the reproduction chain ...people hover on the edge of this understanding, when they acknowledge that, say, EMC may figure somewhere - but they then ridicule a person for buying some gizmo, whose real value, irrespective of any promo guff that comes with the package, is that it attenuates this factor, or the impact of it, by some mechanism.

 

It's vastly more time productive to be able to accept that one's rig is not as good as it could be, because you haven't addressed some aspect enough. Then, you start to focus on some lacking in the sound, and experiment in simple ways to try and nail what could be relevant - once you have a clear idea where there is clearly a shortfall, then you're vastly better equipped to make the right moves; and can easily check progress made, because certain recordings point out the differences in the subjective SQ.

[fas42]

A good exercise for those who don't believe that the engineering of most systems is so marginal that the loss of "specialness" is always ready to leap out and bite you, is to deliberate sabotage the SQ when a peak listening level has been reached. A bit of introduced interference or electrical noise is usually enough - from experience, about 3 or 4 easily reversible "bad moves" will create such an unpleasant edge to the sound, that it will be "unlistenable to".

 

Now, what's that telling you, hmmm ... ? 😉

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

A good exercise for those who don't believe that the engineering of most systems is so marginal that the loss of "specialness" is always ready to leap out and bite you, is to deliberate sabotage the SQ when a peak listening level has been reached. A bit of introduced interference or electrical noise is usually enough - from experience, about 3 or 4 easily reversible "bad moves" will create such an unpleasant edge to the sound, that it will be "unlistenable to".

 

Now, what's that telling you, hmmm ... ? 😉

 

 High-end manufacturers know that raving-reviews, bling-looks and pride-of-ownership usually make up for any lack of performance.

[fas42]

Was gifted a 65" 4K Aldi TV which was redundant for the owner - in the process of "sorting it out", 🤪.

 

Not bad ... biggest issue for me, is that I haven't been able to get into the service menu yet - there are lists everywhere of the "secret codes", so in the meantime I'll keep plugging away, trying every likely posted sequence - hopefully, will stumble across it.

 

The colours in the best settings so far, just using the normal controls, are tolerable, but enough out to regularly irritate

 

UPDATE: Got it! The plugging away did the trick, and ... I'm in! Only took trialing, ummm, about 60 codes ... 😃

 

Biggest problem prior was eliminating the "Attack of Orangeface!" syndrome - now that I have full control of the colour driving I was able to pull back on the Green - immediately, much better! ... I can also adjust gamut, curves; so should be able to precisely dial up the 'perfect' settings, over time, 😉

[fas42]

Just a quick update ... I've gone through the normal cycle of initial enthusiasm, for the "new" TV, to steadily seeing one after another the little things that are "not quite right" - and there are plenty of those! ... Time to settle down to some serious sortin', 😉.

 

First off, getting an acceptable gray scale - the colour distortions are too much, the blacks are not working, the white balance is off ...

 

How is this relevant to audio? Well, at the moment the set looks spectacular on "showy broadcasts", but the more the visuals are that of things in everyday life, the less convincing it is ... it just looks, well, 'fake' ... sound familiar? 😁

 

The set is not perfect, and by all accounts all sets suffer issues - the trick is to coax it into conveying the best impression of imagery that one is familiar with, by playing with all the settings ... the old Aldi did this by the end, the "new" one has a way to go, 🙂.

[gmgraves]

On 11/28/2019 at 5:01 PM, sandyk said:

Hi George

Many CD/DVD/BR players use a simple opamp at the output, sometimes a Dual opamp such a LM4562 etc ,.with typically a series output resistor of 100 ohms. The better ones use a specialised low Output buffer.

Science often only gets updated when there is a monetary incentive, or  Governments throw money into Defence, Space exploration etc. Governments rarely even get involved in Medical Research either, leaving that to big corporations etc. even though it would benefit the whole country for them to fund more research in specific areas where many of their Tax Dollars are needed to support their hospitals.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

The US government has to spend all of its tax money on the “Military/Industrial Complex” and there’s none left to do anything positive for its citizens, like helping to find cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson's, etc.

[Ralf11]

the US Govt. is heavily involved in Medical Research

[Ralf11]

maybe not heavily enough...

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the US Govt. is heavily involved in Medical Research

Yeah, finding better ways to dress wounds in the field, developing better biological and chemical weapons, etc.

[Ralf11]

human genome project is just one

 

get a grip, George

[Ralf11]

be serious - go look up the budget at NIH, NIMH

 

do you know the cost of the human genome project??